Daniel Zylstra
Now into my second pastorate, but in my 42nd year of life, I have been doing the pastoral ministry thing for just over 7 and a half years now. I've been married for almost 20 years and have three beautiful children who (disobediently) keep growing like weeds. I love God and love His church.
When I first felt the call to head in to pastoral ministry, I initially thought that youth ministry would be the thing: "Then I can start with fresh, young minds and hearts who either don't have a lot of church baggage, or who are more than willing to shed it to try new things." I thought.
But then God said to me, "Dan, you know I love people of all ages, right?"
So I said to myself, "Okay, I'll go in to church planting then. That way I can reach and disciple people of all ages and backgrounds, and we still will hopefully either have people who don't have much church baggage, or who are more than willing to shed it."
And God said to me, "Dan, you know I love people in established churches too, right?"
So I said, "Okay, okay, just not the CRC, okay God?"
And, wouldn't you know it, He said, "Dan, you DO know that I love the CRC too, right?"
And so, what else could I do but fall in love with young and old, of all nationalities and backgrounds, from all kinds of churches (yes, I love those in church plants too) and even CRC's?
Now I've been in love in this way for 8 or nine years and counting... God is good.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
[quote=John Zylstra]
The real issue is whether scripture means what it says.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, John, but that line alone is such a pile of hooey. The real issue is NOT whether scripture means what it says. We ALL agree that scriptures mean what they say. The REAL question is whether or not OUR interpretation of scriptures lines up with what scripture actually intends to say. This is an ABSOULUTELY critical distinction. Your statement is inflamatory and wrong. I've not ever heard anyone say, "I want to argue that the scriptures do not mean what they say they mean."
I've heard people argue that "The scriptures don't mean what YOU say they mean." I've heard people say, "The scriptures don't say what we've thought they've been saying." But no one says "The scriptures don't mean what they say."
Case in point: Proverbs 26:4-5 has the following proverbs:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
So, which is it? Do we answer the fool or not? Obviously the "interpretation" of these proverbs needs to be more than surface deep. You may use your hermeneutical tools to come up with an interpretation of this that is different than mine. We may argue about that. Are either one of us arguing that the scriptures don't say these things, or that they don't mean what they say? No. Are we arguing with the way in which you or I interpreted those passages? Yes.
It's the same with the creation story. You might argue that God created the world in 6, 24-hour days. I might argue that God created the world in 6, "1000-years is as unto a day", days. Are either one of us saying that the scriptures doesn't mean what it says? No. Are we arguing that each others' understanding of the scriptures is better/worse and/or more or less correct. Yes.
Posted in: The Siphonophore Gospel
Just to add to this... in case you're tempted to think: What's the possible relevance of this!? Scientists have recently calculated that there may be about 8.8 BILLION stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone that have earth-sized (and possibly habitable) planets around them. Considering how many galaxys there are... well you do the math....
Posted in: The Siphonophore Gospel
Here's a link to the article about how many planets there may be out there: 8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets
Posted in: The Siphonophore Gospel
Thanks, for pointing out Lewis' "Space Trilogy". I've enjoyed the series quite a few times myself, and love the way Lewis explores these topics. Two things to note, though: in the one book "Out of the Silent Planet", Lewis explores a kind of precursor creation to our own, in which the characters of the planet Malachandra don't seem to be fully equipped to "choose" sin over obedience— I seems like an utterly foreign concept to them. In the second book "Perelandra" we discover a kind of "alternate history" version of a race very similar to our own who face a "redemption" before they even fall.
I, however, am interested here in thinking about two things that are not really addressed in Lewis' books:
1. What might "redemption" look like for a race utterly foreign to us (ie, a colonial being), and how might Christ's "once-for-all" sacrifice for our redemption might be connected to other beings/races' redemption story?
2. What a reflection through completely "other"/alien lenses might say about our own understanding of the gospel.
Thanks again for your thoughts, everyone! I'd love to hear more from all of you.
Posted in: The So-Called Knock-Out Game
Joy,
I'm afraid your comments may not be very helpful. Your language here seems to be more inflamatory than conciliatory. There is certainly no excuse for mobs of racially motivated people "knocking out" people of other races. However, neither is there any excuse for language which over generalizes, and makes even more racially polarizing remarks to boot.
If you truly want to address the issue and have something done about it, then maybe we should be asking questions like:
Why is this happening at all? If we were a truly non-racist society, wouldn't this kind of behaviour be utterly ludicrous? How can we "love our enemies" here, as Jesus asked us to do? How can we support the victims (those attacked) by these mobs? How can we seek to bring the true, reconciling justice of Christ to all parties concerned in such happenings?
Those are the kinds of questions we need to be asking. Not inflammatory questions regarding "where the media outrage is" or "imagin[ing] what it would be like if whites attacked blacks like this" None of those questions is helpful, I'm afraid, except insofar as they reflect your feelings of upset: feelings which are natural and understandable. It IS upsetting when ANY people attack ANY other people--especially when it's racially motivated. But let's seek to make it better, not worse.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John,
You have such an interesting idea of what "core" doctrines are. A core doctrine is our belief in the Trinity. A core doctrine is our belief in Jesus as the only way to salvation. A core doctrine is our acknowledgment that God is sovereign Lord over all things, and that Christ will return as triumphant King of Kings. A core doctrine is THAT God created all things. The mechanics of how God created the world (as opposed to the question of whether He created the world or not) is NOT a core doctrine. You conflate these things. THAT God created the world is not equal to HOW God created the world.
Posted in: OK to Use Tithe for Christian School Tuition?
I'd like to propose a slightly different approach to the matter for a couple of reasons here:
In other words, I don't think we should make the issue too easy for people. We should challenge ourselves to wrestle with God on this one--What does God want me to give at this time, and in this place? Jesus doesn't make these issues easy for anyone, but instead constantly challenged people to be more faithful, and more giving and more loving.
What do you think, folks?
Dan.
Posted in: OK to Use Tithe for Christian School Tuition?
Thanks for the encouragement, Henry. You raise a good point about the other times when our families' ability to give is severely reduced. I really think that this is a matter we need to be constantly challenging ourselves on and that the ultimate decision is a faith one--faith in dialogue with God who guides us leading us to a true sacrificial giving that is still ultimately stewardly.
Anyway, I enjoy the discussion too. Blessings, all!
Posted in: Embracing Purposefully Vague Theology & Doctrine
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, Richard, but let me just say that I LOVE what you've written here. It's very helpful for me.
But now I have another question: What if I said that "nailing down" innessentials is a SIN (not saying that's what I necessarily think--but just take it as a proposition)?
If that proposition were true then:
1) It would be a SIN to require infant baptism over believer's only baptism and vice versa.
2) It would be a SIN to require women be allowed in office, but it would also be a SIN not to.
3) It would be a SIN to require that people be amillenial, premillenial, etc.
4) etc., etc.,
In other words the more we "codify" what the gospels supposedly teach on matters that can be legitimately debated, the more we fall into the sin of phariseeism.
Would that be a fair definition of phariseeism? If so, then wouldn't things like this year's "Faith Formation Report" (for Synod 2011) be a problem? It's stated madate is to "discourage" infant dedication. I myself agree wholeheartedly with infant baptism and the covenant theology surrounding it, but there are many who do not and who can make very good arguments the other way. Shouldn't we, as a denomination do something different here?
What do you think, everyone?
Dan.
Posted in: Embracing Purposefully Vague Theology & Doctrine
Dear Iowa Baptist,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. I'm not sure what the baptist denominations are like in your neck of the woods, but in Ontario here you are absolutely correct in one sense, but I would humbly submit, totally incorrect in another. The truth of the matter that pretty much any Christian denomination would echo your statement that belief in Jesus is the only requirement for membership in the church.
However, the reality is that, practically speaking, almost all denominations and churches require more for actual "membership" per se. For example, most baptist churches require not only belief in Jesus Christ, but also they require that a person be baptised as a "believer" as opposed to not being baptized at all or being baptized as an infant. Most of the Baptist churches I've been involved with (and there've been quite a few) will not accept a person into full membership in the church without this believer's baptism.
Some baptist churches will not accept a person into full membership unless they've been baptized by full immersion as a believer too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is evil somehow or anything like that. In the Reformed tradition we have other "requirements" for full membership--not just belief, but a baptism (infant or believer's) and/or a profession of faith afirming the promises of that infant baptism. Some of these requirements are good for sure.
But, we sometimes hold on to a "reformed" or "baptist" or "pentecostal" distinctive at the expense of the gospel, I'm afraid. If reformed people truly believed that saving faith in Jesus was all that was required for membership in the church, then we wouldn't have the forms that we do have for profession of faith or baptism, would we? No. Those forms include not just that saving faith in Jesus, but also that saving faith in Jesus + belief that everything that this church teaches is the true interpretation of the gospel + that we've gone through whatever hoops we believe are required in addition to "just believing"
Anyway, sorry for being long winded, Iowa Baptist, but in the end I'm afraid that, unless your church/denomination is quite a bit different from all others I've come in contact with, I'll have to disagree with your statement that your church only requires faith in Jesus--that's not all my church requires either.
in His service,
Dan.
Posted in: 2011 Report: Translation of 3 Reformed Standards
It doesn't. I don't mean to be rude, but if you read my comment, I say that the remarks in question have square brackets around them, and that similar square brackets in the HC concerning Q&A 80 are followed with a footnote that indicates that we no longer believe this to be true about the Catholic Church. I then go on to ask whether or not thes square brackets are supposed to mean something similar with regards to the Anabaptists. I don't claim that they for sure do mean something similar, I simply am speculating.
Dan.
Posted in: The Reformed Distinctive, or the Reformed "Stink"?
<p>I hear you, Peter, and appreciate your thoughts. I also appreciate the work that the Canadian Council and other ecumenical organizations do.
<p>Don't you think, however, that our doctrine needs to start to reflect this "working together" idea? Don't get me wrong, it is great that churches are, in many ways "living out and reflecting on the Good News together" far more than they used to. It's just that our internal doctrine is still EXCLUSIONARY, rather than inclusionary. Shouldn't any truly Christ-honouring theology and doctrine create as much room at the table as possible, while still maintaining the essentials?
<p>Come to think of it, isn't that what Paul was essentially doing when he kept on intervening between the Jewish and Gentile Christians? He said to each party effectively: It's fine for you to do this or that as long as you're doing it to the Lord, just don't get all hung up on it if it's not core, and don't foist your beliefs and practices on others either, unless it's a core issue.
<p>That may be the attitude that's developing on an inter-denominational level, but shouldn't it also be our attitude within each denomination itself?
<p>As it is, many folks who love the CRC, and who love individual congregations within the CRC can not be members of those churches and/or cannot be leaders in some capacities within those churches simply because of essentially minor differences of doctrine. Isn't that a sin? Isn't it akin to Peter not eating with the "unclean" gentiles?
<p>Dan.